Russian leader Vladimir Putin (pictured on June 23) has alarmed Western leaders by referencing the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The Independent: Putin tells Macron Hiroshima is proof ‘you don’t have to launch nuclear strike on major city to win war’
Vladimir Putin told French president Emmanuel Macron that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki show “you don’t need to attack major cities in order to end a war,” according to reports.
The threat of a Russian atomic strike – particularly one with tactical nuclear weapons which are designed to cause devastation on the battlefield – has been speculated on at the highest level by Ukraine and Western allies.
Reports in the US media said Washington had intelligence showing that senior Russian officials had recently held conversations to discuss when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
But many in the West doubt the Russian president would risk the global backlash that would follow the crossing of so firm a red line.
Read more ....
Update: Putin's deranged Hiroshima threat: Russian leader tells Macron the 1945 atom bomb is proof 'you don't have to launch nuclear strike on a major city to win a war' (Daily Mail).
WNU Editor: For the past decade or so there has been discussions and debate in Russia on the idea that to de-escalate a nuclear conflict you must first escalate it. A few years ago I posted a commentary on how insane this strategy was. In a nuclear conflict no one is going to back down when the other side escalates.
Was that the idea Putin was trying to communicate to Macron? I do not know. But I do know that if only one small tactical nuclear weapon is used, the global panic that it will cause will be enormous.
Stock and bond prices will collapse. There will be a run on the banks and stores. And most people would try their best to flee the cities fearing that the situation will spiral out of control. I know in my case the minute that I hear that a nuclear weapon has been used. Within 15 minutes I will be out of the door and in my car driving to my chalet in the Laurentians.
9 comments:
when the US dropped nukes on Japanese cities the war was already won. Japan was defeated and no longer capable of foregin aggression. the nukes were used to force unconditional surrender, not victory.
This might explain the 'unthinkable' tactic that might be underway concerning Kherson, and the Ukrainian suspicions that it's a trap. The evacuation of Russian enforced placements and Ukrainian civilians to make way for what would be a tactical strike to demoralize the Ukrainian army.
The war was won. What is the definition of won?
* That the eventually, some day surrender?
Japan was still importing goods from East Asia. They had massive minefields protecting the shipping lanes to Korea. Prognosis for subs entering those water was not good. Air power could be used to interdict those ships. Those ships could end up like the Franklin. That carrier was pounded into a smoking ruin.
The Japanese troops in China and Korea were not going to die from a blockade. They had too many resources. If the war went on through 1945 into 1946 that is okay because it would only be colored people/Chinese dying, right?
Fewer Japanese soldiers or civilians died by dropping the bomb than would of given the alternatives of invading or starving them out. I guess the brainwashed are telling me that fewer deaths is a bad thing.
***
What I originally came here for:
So Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not major Japanese cities in WW2. So one of the ways we will have to refute the reasoning of idiot mother fucker Putin is by arguing the definition of what a major city is now or in the 1945 Japan.
We can go there by looking up definition of population totals.
but first what does that argument remind you of?
It reminds me of Democrats where they change definition of everything. Now we will be arguing what the definition of a major city is.
Clearly Putin has a home in the Democrat party. if he comes over as an illegal alien , crosses the southern border and parrot some of the holy sacraments such as CRT and AGW, all will be forgiven. Putin will be a Democrat thought leader in good standing along with the rest of the fascists.
I've been to Nagasaki. It is a major a port. It is also large seemingly going on forever. It is dull, gray and depressing in fall.
For Russia to win against the West, maybe global chaos is the only strategy left? Nukes are so 20th century. Imagine if Ukraine drives Russia out but Russia keeps up cheap drone strikes from outside the borders month after month. Then, a mysterious new disease destroys maize/corn in Mexico and people flood northward. Ukraine is no longer "on the RADAR" and Russia can win. Which system stands up to global chaos better, Eastern or Western? Could Russia, Iran, or North Korea really benefit? It took the chaos at the end of the Bronze age to bring down an earlier world order.
And then Putin took the foot out of his mouth and removed all doubt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_Japan_by_population_by_decade
You may not have 15 minutes. Flight time to Moskva from Europe (Swedish waters is not that long, Launching from Japan to Chinese targets is not long at all.
"Russian marines say 'incompetent' generals are treating them as 'cannon fodder' as 300 'are killed or wounded in four-day massacre' - as footage also shows latest mutiny by Putin's soldiers"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11397991/Russian-marines-say-incompetent-generals-treating-cannon-fodder.html
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mp-toe.htm
Vladivostok -> So Russia is stripping its eastern defenses.
I want the Ukrainians to win, but i feel sorry for these marines. What was done to them was a crime. If you cannot do the job, but hold the job that is criminal, when given such results.
At the very least, it Sound to me like they need to be pulled out of line for rest and refit.
I forgot the statistic the Americans used in WW2, when deciding to pull a division out of line. the decision was made based on number of days in combat. there would be other metrics to make the same decision to rotate a division, but days of combat is one of them, if you have the means.
If the brigade had about 3,000 troops, They took 10% casualties.
I've heard 15% is a rule of thumb to decide, if a commander is incompetent and should be relieved. Of course that depends on the task the high ups give them. But if you reach 15%, you want to stat thinking about a serious inquiry right away.
"You may not have 15 minutes. Flight time ..."
Very valid comment.
Query: How many people look up the velocity of a missile and the distance it covers to calculate flight time?
Answer? Less than 1% ?
How many people looked at a missile velocity and distance for ships transiting the Hormuz Straits of just about anywhere in the Persian Gulf? But they are quick to criticize.
What percentage of people do they expect to make a correct decision to launch or not launch a surface to air missile to neutralize a perceived threat?
Post a Comment